generate_launch_config

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already communicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the $0.50 USDC cost, stating that generation is deterministic, and explicitly clarifying that no launch claim is made—important side-effect and cost context for an agent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single sentence that front-loads the most decision-relevant facts: cost, determinism, output type, and the critical no-launch disclaimer. No filler or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite having an output schema and safety-related annotations, the description does not explain what an 'exact StackBench recommendation' looks like, how the required parameters should be provided, or what the generated templates contain. For a tool with 19 parameters and zero schema coverage, this is materially incomplete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description bears the full burden of explaining parameters. It only hints at 'vLLM or llama.cpp', which maps to the runtime enum, and leaves the other 18 parameters, including required ones like model, hardware_system, and prompt_tokens, completely unexplained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('generate') and resource ('vLLM or llama.cpp launch templates') and names the required input ('an exact StackBench recommendation'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like recommend_deployment by indicating it creates launch templates rather than producing a recommendation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'from an exact StackBench recommendation' supplies a clear precondition: this tool is appropriate only when such a precise recommendation exists. It does not explicitly name alternatives for other cases, but the contextual constraint is strong enough for an agent to route correctly in most situations.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.